Some people believe that being politically correct is a great way to avoid offending others of different orientation, religion, and so on. Because of this, it allows for more friendly interactions. Others believe that being politically correct limits opinions, and will restrain them from conversing and interacting with others. Because of this, it will create a barrier between different groups, and do more harm then good.

The term "politically correct" is a right-wing specter. I have never once in my life heard an informed activist for the LGBTQ movement, the civil rights and anti-racist movement, the feminist movement, etc. say to someone "We have to be politically correct". It doesn't work, it has a namby-pamby ring to it, it doesn't express the appropriate outrage, and it is frankly not appropriate for activism.

There are so many problems with the assertions against "PC" (I will now call them "basic courtesy and accuracy") arguments.

The most major one is that we are never discussing the mere use of a slur in isolation. Even when a comedian breaks decorum in some way that costs them popularity, like when Michael Richards (of Kramer fame) did it, no one was focusing just on the mere use of the n-word. It wasn't as if Richards said, "Man, isn't Al Sharpton cool? He's my ni**a". Rather, he said "Fifty years ago we'd have you upside-down with a f**king fork up your ass!" and "That's what happens when you interrupt the white man, don't you know?" In other words, Richards' rant was racial terrorism. He evoked some of the horrible atrocities that happened to people who were lynched, including being burnt with blowtorches and having pieces taken off, and he asserted his white supremacy and the degree to which he belonged. Yes, that was all still rhetoric, but it wasn't just the literal word: it was his aggressiveness against people of color.

Many defended Richards on this front. They defended him as if his opposition was just fetishizing a word, "ni**er", and giving it magical properties.

Of course, each time I write out that word, that word that has been used with hate, my stomach churns. See, whites have the privilege of viewing that word as just being a word. For blacks and even many other people of color (especially Native Americans, Arabs and Muslims, who have been roped into it by "prairie ni**er" and "sand ni**er"), it evokes five hundred years of history. It evokes hundreds of years where that word was bellowed in an effort to kill, enslave, bomb, hurt, lynch, burn, terrorize, and mangle people. It evokes hundreds of years of fear.

White folks routinely have the privilege of pretending history doesn't matter and doesn't echo. Even I, as the son of an immigrant, have to know better than that. I know supremacy has a life and a breath all of its own.

When people on the political left and center-left bring up that we should call people "transgender" and call them by the gender pronoun that matches their new gender identity, we aren't just saying that as an idle matter of decorum: we are saying it to people who want them to go into a bathroom that they will mentally and in many cases physically not belong, who want to cut their wages or kick them out of their community.

When people on the political left and center-left bring up that we should try to call "Mexicans" Chicana/os, Hispanics or Latina/os, we aren't just talking to people who insist on calling people from Mexico Mexicans: we are fighting against those who would call them rapists and drug dealers, as if the entire group was just one raping, drug dealing apparatus or entity, some tentacled monster.

When people on the political left and center-left insist that we should use gender-neutral language ("firefighters" rather than "firemen"), we aren't just fighting the rhetorical obliteration of females doing a job: we're also fighting those who think women can't be leaders because of their periods.

See, conservatives seem to think, "You've won everything! Can't you just leave the English language alone?"

Oh, no, brother (and it is so often a brother rather than a sister), you have it twisted.

In fact, we have so far to go, from anti-discrimination law to basic tolerance in public spaces to people actually being informed about atheists. We are fighting institutional discrimination, prejudice and bigotry stemming from institutional racism and white supremacy, homophobia and heteronormativity, sexism and male dominance, anti-atheist and agnostic bigotry and Christian hegemony, anti-immigrant and anti-global attitudes and American hegemony, and classism and the dominance of the rich. Notice how, in each case, I listed not just the group that was being targeted but the group that was being elevated. Every time someone says "This is a Christian nation", it is yet another rhetorical assertion of a dominance that they have come to expect and yet have no right to expect and have not earned because such an endeavor would be impossible. The sacrifices of Christians who came before gives no modern Christian a single claim to institutional supremacy. Their majority status does not either.

The second issue is that, even insofar as we're rectifying language, this is what societies do.

No society within the history of the planet has ever said that all language is equally appropriate in public parlance.

Most societies had very strong rules about what one could say in public. Honor codes, rules about courtesy that governed not just what hand one shook with (often as part of an effort to avoid contamination and the spread of germs even before people knew about the modern germ theory), kosher rules... the idea that there are certain things one does not say and do is common to history. Two of the Ten Commandments concern speech: Not taking the Lord's name in vein, and honoring one's mother and father.

One could argue that this was the case of feudal, monarchic and non-democratic societies. But that is emphatically false. Courtesy rules, manners books and so forth still exist. There are numerous 1950s shorts about the proper courtesy and rules for having a family dinner together. These emphatically include ways of talking and not talking: don't gossip, don't monopolize speech, don't put people off their lunch.

What astonishes me so much about this is the political cleavage. Naively, I would have thought that many conservatives, people who are concerned with courtesy and decorum, would naturally and easily come to accept that there are certain ways we should and should not speak as a normative fact. They would come to accept, "Ah, these human beings prefer to be addressed by the opposite gender. How boorish would it be not to accommodate it?" One would think it'd be punk leftists who would spit and say "They're a dude!"

But of course this is accepting conservative self-image and propaganda. In fact, the right-wing across history, the forces that preserve tradition, have always been perfectly able to be rude, cruel, and decidedly non-courteous. They just pretended otherwise as a thin veneer of civilization.

And challenging the entitlement (not the right but the sense that one should not face consequences) of those used to being afforded unlimited latitude challenges their supremacy. And when their supremacy is challenged, they are willing to get mighty rude.

Now, of course, is there a balance to be struck? Of course. Certain taboos should always be challenged. A transgressive attitude is always healthy at the right time and the right place. If friends are hanging out and talking, and there's a high degree of trust, then it can be reasonable to say some things one might not say in mixed company. And certainly artists, comedians, etc. need to be granted some leeway to break sacred cows without too much criticism in response.

But remember: So many of the same people who fight the "PC agenda" will loudly support Trump's support of seditious libel suits against journalists, loudly insist that one shouldn't use the Lord's name in vain, demand that the American flag never be burned or defaced, and insist that one should always "support the troops" no matter one's disagreements with American foreign policy.

And it is precisely that "high degree of trust" that is not to be taken for granted. When so many people are able to say "I'm not racist, I have a black friend", or otherwise signal that they're not "one of the bad ones" and should be given some latitude, they fundamentally misunderstand the trust people. People of color, women, LGBTQ individuals, atheists and agnostics... none of them can trust the rhetorical goodwill of someone they don't know.

The final point is precisely what the original questioner asked: "Others believe that being politically correct limits opinions, and will restrain them from conversing and interacting with others. Because of this, it will create a barrier between different groups, and do more harm then good".

In other words, for the need of social lubrication and discussion, once again people of color, women, LGBTQ folks, non-Americans, immigrants... they all must sacrifice their sense of humanity and how they wish people would speak to them for the good of society.

Never once must the dominant group sacrifice their own sense of comfort, even temporarily, in order to learn new language and to (much more importantly) unlearn their toxic, unfair biases.

Every human being has a right to say, "I demand to be treated with respect, and if you don't, I will not interact with you, I will not speak to you, and I will not do business with you". There is a bare minimum of treatment we can demand in order to interact with us in commerce and daily life.

Those who demand that people not correct other people's speech... are correcting other people's speech.

The anti-PC brigade have a fundamental hypocrisy: They say "I should be able to say anything I want, and you shouldn't be able to say anything you want".

To quote Jeremy Sherman's astute analysis: "By accusing people of being PC we try to persuade people to be less sensitive, less influenced by other people’s opinions, but in declaring PC a universal moral error, we pretend that we could live in a world where no one influences anyone. Usually we do it as a way of claiming our right to try to influence others without being influenced. It’s like the current libertarian craze, motivated by 'my freedom to say and do what I want, without getting hassled' If you want your freedom to say and do what you want, expect the same from everyone else. The person who accuses others of being PC has his own PC sensitivities. He’s saying it’s politically incorrect for you to be politically correct. Anti-PC and libertarianism are often rationalizations for dishing it out without having to take it in".

Either we accept that anything is okay to say or we accept that there should be voluntary rules that we choose, as civilized human beings, as to what we say or do not say. And if anything is okay to say, I get to tell someone else to shut up. If someone else gets to call a friend of mine the "n-word", I get to call them a monster who shouldn't show their face in public. If we're going to make society an endless war of words, then we get every weapon just like you do. Either way, the anti-PC crowd is wrong. Either way, they are demanding "My rules for thee but not for me".

See, what conservatives want is consequence-free speech, not free speech.

Not only is that not a right, not only is it a logical contradiction, but it is a moral absurdity.

You see, this entire battle is really a battle of entitlement against responsibility.

When we have rights as human beings, that gives us power. And with great power comes great responsibility.

If we have the right to choose how we speak, we have the duty to choose that speech carefully.

Those who argue against those calling on them to have respect and kindness for others are arguing to be moral children. They want the rights without the attendant responsibilities.

Bravo! This is a fantastic analysis, and I hope you publish it somewhere else, so it can reach a wider audience. You are articulate, and have obviously given a lot of thought to this topic. Thank you for sharing.

No "politically correct" isn't correct, all it does is stifle conversations, conversations that we NEED to have. PC is used almost exclusive to prevent speech, generally but not always from white people. Is some of that speech uncomfortable? Yes, but is stopping said speech worst? I would contend, yes. Preventing someone from freely speaking their mind is far worst than said speech.

Being PC means you shut people up by calling them a racist, a homophobic, or whatever, FORCE them not say that "word". Gay, Queer, N* gger, etc. don't let them EVER say that word. Don't ever allow them to speak. Of course you won't change their mind and will just re-enforce their views. Especially if you ask is minority person X held to the SAME standard.

Having someone say what's really on their mind, and using reason to show how they are wrong, is far better than censoring their speech. When you censor people all you do then is drive them underground. You GIVE them power, "They don't want me to tell you this because it's not PC, but it's the truth." How do you counter that, you can't because you can't hold their speech up to the light of day. You can't counter what's not being said in public.

Michael Richards called two black hecklers the "n-word", was he provoked, yes should he have responded, probably not, after all it's probably wasn't the first time he was heckled, but what fallout did the hecklers receive none, but Richards career is virtually destroyed. While this was happening the hecklers didn't just want an apology, they wanted compensation too.

Now compare that to pass that given to Al Sharpton and his comments. “White folks was in the caves while we was building empires.“We built pyramids before Donald Trump even knew what architecture was…We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it…" "Do some cracker come and tell you, ‘Well my mother and father blood go back to the Mayflower,’ you better hold your pocket. That ain’t nothing to be proud of, that means their forefathers was crooks.”

Now imagine any white person saying all blacks are crooks, what would be the fallout?

If we're going to be PC and not say the N-word, then we shouldn't allow the use of "White boy," "Cracker," "Honkey," "Whitey," "Caveman" etc. See it so easy to be offended, that soon you wouldn't be able to say anything negative about anyone or any groups true or not.

Remember if screaming "white power" is a racist statement doesn't that make screaming "black power" (after all some in the black power movement have said that black need to kill whitey) also a racist statement and if we're going to be PC should they BOTH be silenced?

My quick and short response to this is that in my view political correctness should not serve to stifle conversations. I would think that rather words like "cracker" and "honkey" (to name a few) shut people up (especially the ones who are addressed by it). "Being PC" [ideally] would mean that instead of resorting to one-word generalisations of a (for example) racist kind, the conversation is kept alive by disregarding these one-word shortcuts or at least explaining what or why you think by the grace of these negatively laden words. While writing this, it occurs to me that opponents of political correctness might have a problem with that their - arguably derigatory - words (how else are we supposed to interpret them) are publicly considered to be negative.

But, that's what it being used for, it not as the PC crowd like to put being nice to each other, it's being used to shut people up. But even if the word is derogatory, or load so what, take illegal alien, sorry the PC word is undocumented migrant, I chose the use illegal alien, it's the proper term even if it loaded or derogatory, but as soon as I say illegal alien, I'm branded a racist, they won't here why I use the proper term, or why I object to the term undocumented migrant. So why should I listen to the other side if all they want to do is scream that I'm a racist? Why should I listen to their point of view when they won't listen to mine? So the PC crowd is using PC to stop conversations.

So that would mean that Political Correctness (I refuse to abbreviate the term because I'll end up lazily using it as most people would) is used incorrectly/by extremes. That doesn't make it in itself a wrong phenomenon.

I do agree that "alien" is a proper (albeit confusing <- because UFO's) term. So "illegal alien" translates into "undocumented migrant", correct? While I wouldn't think the first term is politically incorrect, I would think that the second term implies a more problemsolving connotation to the word. Like: "they aren't documented... indefinitely." The word "illegal" puts more emphasis on them being on the 'wrong side' of the law (end of sentence - no retry).

That said, your disenchantment with political correctness is understandable to me. Moreover, being called a racist for calling someone an illegal alien is pretty nonsensical, as the term merely indicates a legal status; regardless of any heritage or origin whatsoever.

No Illegal alien does not translate into undocumented migrant. A migrant is a person who moves regularly in order to find work. Undocumented means they don't have the proper work permits or do not have said documents on their person. If a person claims to have the proper paper work but doesn't have it on their person, you could rightly claim that person is an undocumented migrant. Illegal alien is a foreign person who lives in a country without having official permission to live there. There is a huge difference between people moving around to find work and people who are illegally living here.

If you think about it the Political Correctness crowd wants to muddy the water by combining three groups, migrants, illegal migrants, illegal aliens. Migrants are documented workers who will stay in the country for a limited amount of time to work. Illegal migrants are in the country illegally, but who stay for a limited amount of time to work. Illegal alien is a person who is in the country illegally and has taken up residency in the country, and may work illegally.

I have a problem with both illegal aliens and illegal migrants, I have no problem if a person is following the LAW, either to work or immigrate into this country. But like I said as soon as I try and use the proper terms, the Political Correctness crowd, shouts RACIST, and try to shut me down.

Okay, I honestly was under the impression the two were the same. Thanks for explaning.

And about the Political Correctness crowd: anything can be taken to extremes, even political correctness. I think people should not have to be taken to places that they aren't comfortable with; like straining to have a proper discussion when the content should exceed the form. Seeing it from your side, maybe it would help to think that in a (for you annoying) way people are showing that they care.

Well, the politically correctness crowd, says they care, but in many cases that's where it ends. I refuse to let people use this term, therefore I care. Not that they will do anything to solve the problems, but at least they say they care.

And people should be taken places they aren't comfortable with, that's part of the discussion. Politically correct or not, if you tell me don't use the term, you should be able to tell why I shouldn't use it.

It's the uncomfortable discussion where problems get solved, not the pat on the back one's where everyone agrees they care. To make this less loaded, take the drug problem, we could just call the drug dealers, undocumented pharmacist, and say that all they really just want to build a business for themselves. Well that's nice, we don't have drug dealers anymore and all we need to do is give not enforce the law, or should we have that uncomfortable discussion, about how to solve the drug problem with treatment and many legalize some drugs, and maybe allowing addicts a place to shoot up, that is a safe place with maybe medical help standing by, and give them clean needles so we lessen the dangers while we try and get them into treatment to end their addiction, while at the same time stopping those who are selling drugs illegally.

Those are the kind of thing the being politically correct stops, we can't talk about this or that because it not politically correct to say we need to jail drug dealers, because it hits minorities harder than whites. Or from the other side that we encourage drug use by allowing (another non-politically correct word) junkies to shoot up. But if we allow people to use the term junkie and show them it's really an addiction, which they may be predisposed too, and that many addicts want to be clean but need help, and that it will be cheaper in the long run to give them clean safe places to use drugs. Or maybe we need to give job training to dealers and show them in the long run they make more money doing a legal job the dealing.

Or we could be politically correct and tell the person who used the term junkie, that they don't know what they are talking about and need to shut up. While the other side says nothing except to like minded people and vote not to fund a program that would save many lives and money. And the political correct crowd end up with no programs and making the lives of many minorities even worst but no enforcing the law, even if more minorities end up in jail for illegal activity. In the end being politically correct, means everyone loses.

And of course this is only my opinion, right, wrong or otherwise. (it's been a long time since I've use that tag line. I'm thinking about bringing it back.)

I think people tend to currently overuse this term, making it an umbrella term which encapsulates other things like simply being polite or thoughtful or even diplomatic (these are actually different things). For me, being politically correct means to withhold/filter your true opinion/prime reaction for "political purposes"; like to prevent offending or insulting anyone based on how their beliefs (not just religious beliefs) differ from your own, in order to keep the 'conversation' going. The intention of this political correctness is to uphold relations, based on respect. Sometimes, I think people who are being "accused" of being politically correct are basically being accused of the possibility that this respect is feigned, thus resulting in them supposedly acting insincere.

Another currently overused term is "to be offended", which I think implies something different than being insulted or feeling hurt (yet it is used in these other two instances as well). I personally don't mind when someone uses this word, but like the phenomenon of political correctness (which is actually a positive term currently suffering a negative reputation), people are starting to get mocked for their outrage (ironically caused by what they perceive as a lack of political correctness). The downside to this is that people would simply give up either taking eachothers feelings into account or voice their own thoughts altogether. I think if people would experience the positive effect of political correctness, they would see it in a different light (also they would have less reason to feel offended).

Examples of a conversation (respectively) without and with political correctness:
When asked to make a donation for lower income households- "Are there no prisons?"
- "Plenty of prisons..."
- "And the Union workhouses." demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"
- "Both very busy, sir..."
- "Those who are badly off must go there."
- "Many can't go there; and many would rather die."
- "If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

During a Diversity Day excerise"Okay, if I have to do this, based on stereotypes that are completely untrue, and that I do not agree with, you would maybe... not be... a very good driver."

[EDIT: Aside of being insulted or feeling hurt, there is also the phenomenon of indignation that can be placed next to feeling offended. However, I think this indignation precedes feelings of offense (instead of mainly being a similar term), so I'll just mention it here]